Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Sure, but do you trust Iran? Would you like to live in a world where they have nuclear weapons? I'm all for reducing the embargoes and allowing them to reenter the world markets, but I draw the line at allowing them to build nuclear enrichment facilities.

What are you going to do about it anyway? Aren't you against foreign intervention?

I am, yes. I'm not advocating invasion. I think Trump in general is doing a good job on foreign policy. He's been tough, but with an end goal of making deals. I think he's done a good job with North Korea, I think he's doing what is long overdue with China, and he called Europe out on their military spending. These are all good things. Right now he's escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table. This shit is working. He's certainly made Obama look like a completely ineffectual pussy.

you are such a smooth-brained toad. That's the only conclusion i can come to anyone who thinks Trump is doing a good job on foreign policy. From a strictly practical perspective, removing the US from the global negotiating table by publicly calling out traditional allies, implementing border and entry policies that have not been well-thought out, and engaging directly with foreign leaders without involving advisors or having any fucking clue about what the historical relationship is with the country you are engaging in is a lesson in how NOT to engage in foreign policy.

"He's been tough!" Can you link to ONE action he has implemented that would lead you to believe this? Do you want to know how NOT to engage in foreign policy diplomacy? Capitulating to North Korea in the form of suspending or ending joint military exercises in South Korea without getting any type of conciliatory action or concession from North Korea is the opposite of being tough. He has done absolutely nothing to move along an agreement with North Korea, because all he cares about is the dog and pony show (I come to this conclusion based on the fact that Trump keeps talking about the meetings and great discussions, using props like the letter and agreements agreeing to meet for more meetings as evidence of progress, as opposed to, you know, actual, measurable and quantifiable points of any kind).

"He is doing what is long overdue with China". You support his protectionist measures? You support import taxes? I must have been reading your last 7 years of forum posts completely wrong, what with the championing of neoliberal market policies. No, increasing taxes and facing retaliatory measures are actually a good thing that benefits the US, because it punishes China at the detriment of the US? What is long overdue wrg to China?

"He is escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table" that he pulled away! Obama got real concessions from Iran regarding their nuclear program, and was able to get multilateral support for his deal (using global pressure). As of now, Iran has not agreed to anything with the U.S., and is no longer curtailing uranium enrichment, whereas they were under Obama. What a win, Trump!

Trump is acting unilaterally without understanding big pictures and using the threat of force to try to get foreign powers to capitulate. That approach to foreign policy has terrible outcomes, based on historical examples. He is alienating the US in the perceptions of the rest of the world, and calling out traditional allies in the process. He is reversing literal decades of positive political capital the US has built up through diplomacy in the world, and probably set the US back 30 years on the international stage, which will result in future presidents offering numerous good-faith approaches to restore the global standing of the US. The US is stuck watching as the rest of the world is moving on, forming multinational alliances, regional trade agreements and engaging in international diplomacy. In a world where these types of agreements are enacted, it benefits the US to have a strong seat at the table. We don't, and it will take a long time and a lot of effort to restore that.

But yes, he said some stuff about Europe. Did you know Europe already agreed to increase their military spending (and contributions to NATO) before Trump was president?

I could go in to a "Foreign Policy 101" type diatribe but it's pointless. The threat of military action is never the first step in negotiation. Trump doesn't know that because he doesn't care. His idea of making deals was borne out of mafia and 1980's NY business. He is literally a caricature of what people in the '80's thought was a good business man - power suits, strong handshakes and adding positive adjectives when describing anyone. It's like he read an "Intro to Business" book at boarding school and cribbed everything he read and never bothered to learn anything else.

I don't like the overall view the US takes regarding foreign policy, and that hasn't changed. However, within the confines of that approach, Trump is failing. But you're more worried about him proving that Obama is a pussy, so you really are el sapo.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

What are you going to do about it anyway? Aren't you against foreign intervention?

I am, yes. I'm not advocating invasion. I think Trump in general is doing a good job on foreign policy. He's been tough, but with an end goal of making deals. I think he's done a good job with North Korea, I think he's doing what is long overdue with China, and he called Europe out on their military spending. These are all good things. Right now he's escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table. This shit is working. He's certainly made Obama look like a completely ineffectual pussy.

you are such a smooth-brained toad. That's the only conclusion i can come to anyone who thinks Trump is doing a good job on foreign policy. From a strictly practical perspective, removing the US from the global negotiating table by publicly calling out traditional allies, implementing border and entry policies that have not been well-thought out, and engaging directly with foreign leaders without involving advisors or having any fucking clue about what the historical relationship is with the country you are engaging in is a lesson in how NOT to engage in foreign policy.

"He's been tough!" Can you link to ONE action he has implemented that would lead you to believe this? Do you want to know how NOT to engage in foreign policy diplomacy? Capitulating to North Korea in the form of suspending or ending joint military exercises in South Korea without getting any type of conciliatory action or concession from North Korea is the opposite of being tough. He has done absolutely nothing to move along an agreement with North Korea, because all he cares about is the dog and pony show (I come to this conclusion based on the fact that Trump keeps talking about the meetings and great discussions, using props like the letter and agreements agreeing to meet for more meetings as evidence of progress, as opposed to, you know, actual, measurable and quantifiable points of any kind).

"He is doing what is long overdue with China". You support his protectionist measures? You support import taxes? I must have been reading your last 7 years of forum posts completely wrong, what with the championing of neoliberal market policies. No, increasing taxes and facing retaliatory measures are actually a good thing that benefits the US, because it punishes China at the detriment of the US? What is long overdue wrg to China?

"He is escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table" that he pulled away! Obama got real concessions from Iran regarding their nuclear program, and was able to get multilateral support for his deal (using global pressure). As of now, Iran has not agreed to anything with the U.S., and is no longer curtailing uranium enrichment, whereas they were under Obama. What a win, Trump!

Trump is acting unilaterally without understanding big pictures and using the threat of force to try to get foreign powers to capitulate. That approach to foreign policy has terrible outcomes, based on historical examples. He is alienating the US in the perceptions of the rest of the world, and calling out traditional allies in the process. He is reversing literal decades of positive political capital the US has built up through diplomacy in the world, and probably set the US back 30 years on the international stage, which will result in future presidents offering numerous good-faith approaches to restore the global standing of the US. The US is stuck watching as the rest of the world is moving on, forming multinational alliances, regional trade agreements and engaging in international diplomacy. In a world where these types of agreements are enacted, it benefits the US to have a strong seat at the table. We don't, and it will take a long time and a lot of effort to restore that.

But yes, he said some stuff about Europe. Did you know Europe already agreed to increase their military spending (and contributions to NATO) before Trump was president?

I could go in to a "Foreign Policy 101" type diatribe but it's pointless. The threat of military action is never the first step in negotiation. Trump doesn't know that because he doesn't care. His idea of making deals was borne out of mafia and 1980's NY business. He is literally a caricature of what people in the '80's thought was a good business man - power suits, strong handshakes and adding positive adjectives when describing anyone. It's like he read an "Intro to Business" book at boarding school and cribbed everything he read and never bothered to learn anything else.

I don't like the overall view the US takes regarding foreign policy, and that hasn't changed. However, within the confines of that approach, Trump is failing. But you're more worried about him proving that Obama is a pussy, so you really are el sapo.

You're a Bernie bro. You really have no standing to question anyone else's intelligence.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." -Frederick Bastiat

Neocons and democratic socialist both agree that Trump doesn't know what he is doing in relations to foreign policy. There is no consistency or plan to it. Of course since he is getting criticized by "both sides" Jay thinks that means he is doing something right.

Sometimes there doesn't seem to be consistency or a plan until after the event and we learn what the plan was all along.

The priority for the neo-cons and evangelists running the White House is to knock down Israel's enemies.

Hence Iran having a civilian nuclear power program is a handy excuse to bomb them to oblivion. North Korea having nuclear weapons and ICBM programs matters not at all - just as long as Israel is dominant come the end-of-times - which could be brought about by North Korea's nuclear weapons, no matter I guess.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Neocons and democratic socialist both agree that Trump doesn't know what he is doing in relations to foreign policy. There is no consistency or plan to it. Of course since he is getting criticized by "both sides" Jay thinks that means he is doing something right.

No, it's just my own opinion. We tried shunning entire countries for decades and nothing changed. Did the Castros get overthrown? No. Did the Kim family get overthrown? No. Try something new. I cheered on Obama when he opened up travel to Cuba. If Clinton had won and and tried something new I'd be happy too. She wouldn't, because she's a neocon, but anyway. Status quo wasn't working. Only idiots keep doing the same ineffective thing over and over.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." -Frederick Bastiat

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Neocons and democratic socialist both agree that Trump doesn't know what he is doing in relations to foreign policy. There is no consistency or plan to it. Of course since he is getting criticized by "both sides" Jay thinks that means he is doing something right.

No, it's just my own opinion. We tried shunning entire countries for decades and nothing changed. Did the Castros get overthrown? No. Did the Kim family get overthrown? No. Try something new. I cheered on Obama when he opened up travel to Cuba. If Clinton had won and and tried something new I'd be happy too. She wouldn't, because she's a neocon, but anyway. Status quo wasn't working. Only idiots keep doing the same ineffective thing over and over.

I agree that doing something different is a good idea. Nuking every country but the US is classified as "doing something different." and we can all agree that's not a good idea. Using twitter to implement foreign policy is not a good idea. Calling foreign leaders names like a fucking 5 year old isn't great diplomacy!

Just because he is upending the global status quo doesn't mean it's a good thing. His actions are directly leading to a weakened US on the international stage.

Jay: I don't like identity politics, I hate how the liberals use it as a political cudgel

Also Jay: You're a bernie bro, dude, therefore I dismiss anything you say.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Neocons and democratic socialist both agree that Trump doesn't know what he is doing in relations to foreign policy. There is no consistency or plan to it. Of course since he is getting criticized by "both sides" Jay thinks that means he is doing something right.

No, it's just my own opinion. We tried shunning entire countries for decades and nothing changed. Did the Castros get overthrown? No. Did the Kim family get overthrown? No. Try something new. I cheered on Obama when he opened up travel to Cuba. If Clinton had won and and tried something new I'd be happy too. She wouldn't, because she's a neocon, but anyway. Status quo wasn't working. Only idiots keep doing the same ineffective thing over and over.

Obama tried something new with the Iranians and attempted to make peace after 30 years of animosity and you called him a pussy for trying. Then Trump comes and decides to checks notes revert Iran policy back to 2005. You applauded this. Unless you can point at some major diplomatic victory Trump has achieved over Iran, your own logic failed.

Secondly, you mentioned Cuba. Trump is trying to reserve the opening in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. How does that fit in with your logic of Trump success?

I like following those reddit subs like /r/combatfootage and /r/militaryporn that post war and fighting videos. Cool stuff but the comments whenever it is Americans fighting are always such a turn off. A bunch of Americans getting worked up about how great our guys kicked some peasant ass in Fallujah even though the locals left a hundred American bodies.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I like following those reddit subs like /r/combatfootage and /r/militaryporn that post war and fighting videos. Cool stuff but the comments whenever it is Americans fighting are always such a turn off. A bunch of Americans getting worked up about how great our guys kicked some peasant ass in Fallujah even though the locals left a hundred American bodies.

"What an absolute warrior" TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

neckbeard subs full of wannabe soldiers are full of edgelord comments. What will your investigative journalism uncover next?

you don't get to look down on those people when you spend your spare time doing that. that's like joining a bunch of incel boards and lording it over them because you slept with your teaching assistant. way to go buddy!

You signed up for a forum for a military game. You would still scream if you saw people in real life celebrating American "success" in the Gulf War or talking up all of those battles we won in Vietnam.

you'd maybe have a point if the military game in question were america's army or something. people didn't get into bf2 because they had a huge attachment to the american armed forces or iraq–afghanistan. the skin and textures of the game are sort of irrelevant. the fact that fans of the franchise pivoted from ww2 to vietnam, the great war, and even a century in the future, should probably be a hint that people aren't brought to these games for their realism and historical re-enactment.

talking up all those battles you won in vietnam? i'd more likely raise an eyebrow at the questionable historical revisionism.

I think it's about two things. First, nothing wrong with including female characters in a shooter, we've had women as leads in shooting games since forever. it was about the added pretense of it being a WW2 focused game. That's a dubious selling point if the developer doesn't care about respecting anything in the public recollection of that event, nevermind any details. Call it alternative history or inspired by WW2 themes and give it a new name, that way I don't think there would have been nearly as much of an uproar. But they didn't because that would be harder to sell I guess.

Second I suppose it was resistance against a broader trend, the notion that diversity/gender issues supersede anything else. The company leadership was in that time controlled by people who made it obvious diversity was one of their main focus areas. In itself not a bad thing, but there's imo some rightful protest against that practice especially when it involves diversitywashing a real point in history where societies struggled with deeply ingrained racism, sexism and inequality. Imho it would be much better to acknowledge that instead of pushing our 21st century ideals on anything that came before.

There's a flipside though. BF WW1 featured a black soldier in its trailer which also caused controversy. In this instance the cause is in the fact that most of the general public seems unaware that the allied also imported colonials and minorities to fight in Europe in reasonably large numbers. It's falsely seen as a purely 'white guy war'. At that point I was much more in agreement with dice.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

What are you going to do about it anyway? Aren't you against foreign intervention?

I am, yes. I'm not advocating invasion. I think Trump in general is doing a good job on foreign policy. He's been tough, but with an end goal of making deals. I think he's done a good job with North Korea, I think he's doing what is long overdue with China, and he called Europe out on their military spending. These are all good things. Right now he's escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table. This shit is working. He's certainly made Obama look like a completely ineffectual pussy.

you are such a smooth-brained toad. That's the only conclusion i can come to anyone who thinks Trump is doing a good job on foreign policy. From a strictly practical perspective, removing the US from the global negotiating table by publicly calling out traditional allies, implementing border and entry policies that have not been well-thought out, and engaging directly with foreign leaders without involving advisors or having any fucking clue about what the historical relationship is with the country you are engaging in is a lesson in how NOT to engage in foreign policy.

"He's been tough!" Can you link to ONE action he has implemented that would lead you to believe this? Do you want to know how NOT to engage in foreign policy diplomacy? Capitulating to North Korea in the form of suspending or ending joint military exercises in South Korea without getting any type of conciliatory action or concession from North Korea is the opposite of being tough. He has done absolutely nothing to move along an agreement with North Korea, because all he cares about is the dog and pony show (I come to this conclusion based on the fact that Trump keeps talking about the meetings and great discussions, using props like the letter and agreements agreeing to meet for more meetings as evidence of progress, as opposed to, you know, actual, measurable and quantifiable points of any kind).

"He is doing what is long overdue with China". You support his protectionist measures? You support import taxes? I must have been reading your last 7 years of forum posts completely wrong, what with the championing of neoliberal market policies. No, increasing taxes and facing retaliatory measures are actually a good thing that benefits the US, because it punishes China at the detriment of the US? What is long overdue wrg to China?

"He is escalating with Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table" that he pulled away! Obama got real concessions from Iran regarding their nuclear program, and was able to get multilateral support for his deal (using global pressure). As of now, Iran has not agreed to anything with the U.S., and is no longer curtailing uranium enrichment, whereas they were under Obama. What a win, Trump!

Trump is acting unilaterally without understanding big pictures and using the threat of force to try to get foreign powers to capitulate. That approach to foreign policy has terrible outcomes, based on historical examples. He is alienating the US in the perceptions of the rest of the world, and calling out traditional allies in the process. He is reversing literal decades of positive political capital the US has built up through diplomacy in the world, and probably set the US back 30 years on the international stage, which will result in future presidents offering numerous good-faith approaches to restore the global standing of the US. The US is stuck watching as the rest of the world is moving on, forming multinational alliances, regional trade agreements and engaging in international diplomacy. In a world where these types of agreements are enacted, it benefits the US to have a strong seat at the table. We don't, and it will take a long time and a lot of effort to restore that.

But yes, he said some stuff about Europe. Did you know Europe already agreed to increase their military spending (and contributions to NATO) before Trump was president?

I could go in to a "Foreign Policy 101" type diatribe but it's pointless. The threat of military action is never the first step in negotiation. Trump doesn't know that because he doesn't care. His idea of making deals was borne out of mafia and 1980's NY business. He is literally a caricature of what people in the '80's thought was a good business man - power suits, strong handshakes and adding positive adjectives when describing anyone. It's like he read an "Intro to Business" book at boarding school and cribbed everything he read and never bothered to learn anything else.

I don't like the overall view the US takes regarding foreign policy, and that hasn't changed. However, within the confines of that approach, Trump is failing. But you're more worried about him proving that Obama is a pussy, so you really are el sapo.

I worked in the EU for a while and was still in Brussels after the Obama/Trump transition happened. I'll use the events after the outbreak of the Qatar/Saudi crisis in 2017 as an example. Most of the member states wanted to be urgently informed on the position of the US administration to see if we could align policies.

The answer we got at the top strategic level and from some country delegations was basically that Tillerson said Y, Mattis said X, and Trump's twitter feed indicated that Qatar was at fault. Nobody had a fucking clue. There wasn't a foreign policy to speak of. This was the info we had to work with at the ambassador/ministerial level.

The man did whatever he wanted, let his most senior officials operate on islands and had no insight into or real control over his government bureaucracy. This was apparent every time US policies were a topic of discussion. I (thank god) left shortly after but have had no indications this reality changed since.

I often find that fair points of criticism made against the president simply don't register with his flock. If you press hard enough on the deeply entrenched, then you're just some "whiny liberal who's against fun and doesn't like to see America win." The fence-sitting "I don't support Trump except I sort of do" folks will just stare at you blankly and regurgitate some line they've heard on a conservative youtube channel, radio station, or on Fox News.

After awhile, it starts feeling like a lost cause.

Larssen wrote:

I think it's about two things. First, nothing wrong with including female characters in a shooter, we've had women as leads in shooting games since forever. it was about the added pretense of it being a WW2 focused game. That's a dubious selling point if the developer doesn't care about respecting anything in the public recollection of that event, nevermind any details. Call it alternative history or inspired by WW2 themes and give it a new name, that way I don't think there would have been nearly as much of an uproar. But they didn't because that would be harder to sell I guess.

At the risk of drawing things too off topic, it's an arcadey shooter series with tanks, planes, and automobiles. And sometimes boats, walkers, and skyships. I can recall hundreds of individual scenarios that played out over the first few games that have no grounding in reality. Do they really need to state that it's alternative history and give it a new name because there's a woman with a rifle? How can the games be doing a disservice to history when they were only very loosely based on it (or in the case of 2142, sci-fi).

The "you already have your shooters, so stay over there in Tomb Raider" sort of argument is puzzling. In all, the screeching about it is absurd and a little embarrassing. Seems like a waste of effort that could instead be used to rail against actual immersion-breaking mechanics, such as exploitative loot boxes.

The moment British commandos seized an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar in a bold night-time raid, UK officials knew they were entering sensitive territory.

For more than a year, Britain had been co-operating with France and Germany to save the Iran nuclear deal that Donald Trump had abandoned and come up with measures to offset the crushing impact of US sanctions on the Islamic republic. But by impounding the Grace 1, the UK had mounted an operation that Tehran would deem a hostile act and interpret as a sign that Britain was aligning itself to the Trump administration’s “economic war” against Tehran.

The UK was aware of the risks of Iranian retaliation. Days after the Grace 1 was detained it raised its threat warning for British vessels passing through Iranian waters to “level 3” — the highest. But on Friday, Iranian special forces were shinnying down ropes from a helicopter to seize the Stena Impero, a British-flagged tanker and its 23-man crew in the Strait of Hormuz, the pinchpoint to the Gulf.

The result is that Britain has been thrust into the centre of Iran’s increasingly belligerent stand-off with the west and is grappling with a diplomatic crisis just as a new prime minister prepares to take office and lead the UK out of Europe. The fear among some British politicians is that the UK could be sucked ever closer to the US’s hawkish stance on Iran and, in a worst-case scenario, be dragged into a conflict.

“I’m extremely worried about elements in the United States seeking to draw us into actions about which we might have reservations,” said Alistair Burt, a Conservative MP and former Middle East minister. “Keeping Iran in that [nuclear] deal and working with European partners is in all of our interests. It’s disturbing, but it is possible that there would be some who would want to break into that and divide us.”

Why US-Iran tensions spell danger for Britain's new PM

There have already been hints that the UK has tacked more towards the Trump administration’s position on Iran than Germany and France. Unlike the two other European signatories to the 2015 nuclear accord, Britain has publicly backed Washington’s claims that Iran was responsible for sabotage attacks on six vessels off the coast of the United Arab Emirates in May and June.

UK officials, however, insist the Grace 1’s seizure had nothing to do with the US’s punitive measures against Iran. They argue that Britain had no option when a vessel suspected of shipping oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions entered European territory.

But Spain muddied the waters by saying Britain acted on a US request. John Bolton, the hawkish US National Security Adviser, said at the time that the seizure of Grace 1 was “excellent news”.

the only country to walk away from the nuclear deal is the US, largely at the behest (or more like whim) of john bolton, a hawk who has been sharpening his talons over iran since long before any nuclear issue. britain has not left the nuclear deal, and as for israel, i'm not even sure how they enter the picture. do you think trump has broken off agreements with iran because of the israel lobbyists, those malefic zionists? you are absolutely deluded.